Why did the publishers think that doing this to William-Adolphe Bouguereau's The Madonna of the Roses would be OK?
This interpretation, quite possibly the worst knock-off in history... well, it makes me want to cry. I'm sorry, but whoever did this should somehow be punished.
Here is the actual masterpiece:
Awful...and disgraceful. I hope the Church authorities take them to task.
ReplyDeletePhotoshop FAIL.
ReplyDeleteThat's messed up, especially for a supposedly traditional Catholic organization. What's next, a smiley face on a Christ Pantocrator icon?
ReplyDeleteWhy do people do things like this? What's sad is, I've not seen that picture before, and I probably would have thought nothing of it if you hadn't said anything.
Not to go off on a rant, but that's a tool of the evil one, giving us something that looks just a bit like the real thing, but not. Hang that mess!
From the book, Pere Lamy by Comte Paul Biver-
ReplyDeleteHe showed us the statue of the Virgin and Child by a well known artist. You can see it there still. The Blessed Virgin has her robe opened at the neck. The Child is quite naked; She is holding him with a bit of cloth. The Blessed Virgin appeared to me and said, "Take care, Lucifer is after you like a dog tracking down a hare." She signified to me that this representation done by a professional man and very good artistically, was not pleasing to her.
(The account goes on to relate that the Blessed Virgin was not pleased because the Child was not properly clothed.)
That is one of my favorites of Bouguereau...and of all. That is quite horrifying. And creepy. Somebody's mouse hand should be crippled.
ReplyDeleteI'm confused:
ReplyDeleteIt's obvious someone has altered the original (so it is technically not William-Adolphe Bouguereau's Madonna of the Roses).
The changes I noticed are: 1) the Madonna's face has been altered so that she is looking at the viewer, and 2) the Holy Child's bottom is covered.
What are people most offended by:
a) the act of altering one work of art and thus to create a 'new' one;
b) the modesty coverage of the Holy Child, akin to the fig leaves on Michaelangelo's Last Judgement in the Sistine Chapel;
c) the misleading of this cover as the original Bouguereau?
I'm being serious, I'm not sure what is the basis for anger, looking at the comments so far.
Thanks.
Fr. REF
I can only speak for myself, so...
ReplyDeleteI'm a firm believer in value of faux in Catholic art, especially for reproducing masterpieces for churches. However, I'm thoroughly opposed to kitsch, which this most definitely is.
Faux good. Kitsch bad.
The artist who produced this faux painting is capable, as is evident from the face of the Christ Child, so I'm absolutely befuddled as to why the artist would do such a horrible rendering of Our Lady's expression. Why wouldn't he or she just keep to original facial expression as they did with the Christ Child?
I suppose that someone who doesn't know much about art might pass over this painting without notice, or might even like it. Ignorance is bliss. However, for those who know Bouguereau, at the very least this knock-off is good for a laugh. I thought it was kind of humorous, so the original post was, at least in part, hyperbole.
Seriously, though, given the prices in the catalog for this kitsch painting, one would be better served by going online and finding a quality print of the original. Unfortunately, Bouguereau isn't a featured artist with the Web Gallery of Art (but many others are, see the link in the sidebar).
Our Lady isn't smiling in the original, right?
ReplyDelete